02-19-2003 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M3-2MS 1973 Fagmicu nimt Read Febnury 13.2M3 Page! On December 9 Council rc\icwcd Ihe application for boulder retaining walls and brien> reviewed the other outstanding unresolved issues with the property. They indicated the shed on the east lakeshore must be removed and applicant w as advised to apply for variances for the parking area and the west deck. Such application has been made, but applicant has additionally included a request for additional hardcover for a deck in the area between the house and garage. Hardcover and structural coverage for a similar (but smaller) deck w as denied in a prior application (File tt 02-2778 Resolution No. 4788 adopted April 22.2002). Because each of the three aspects of this request is in a separate hardcov cr rone, they w ill be treated individually for the sake of clarity. I. Gravel Farklag Area - East 0-75* Zone The most went surv cy on file for the property (November 5,2002) indicates an easterly 0-75* rone of approximately 3600 s.f based on directly extended lot lines to include the accretions east of the ^ right-of-way. Applicants submitted hardcovercalculations incorrectly include road right-of-w ay in the area calculation. Staff has received no indication that Manley’s title registration action to formalize their ow nership of the accretions has been completed. Neither the sun cy nor the detail sheet indicate any angling of the north line to accommodate the neighboring property owners w ho expressed concerns at the PC meeting last fall. T.iC result of this is that the total square footage of Ihe east 0-75* zone is potentially not >rt established, and therefore the percentage to be covered by gravel parking area is potentially subject to change. Assuming, however, that Ihe shed will be removed as directed by Council, and that the only other hardcover in the east 0-75 ’ zone is iht 4(X) s.f. gravel parking area, this >iclds an easterh 0-75' hardcover of 11.1%. I he survey- sugges ts that the existing paved road surface ends about 8* from Ihe edge of the right-of-w ay. This either means that the 2(Tx20 ’ gravel area will add 28*deepx2(rw ide of hardcover, or it means that only 1 2* of the gravel w ill be on the property, with the remainder on the nghl-of-w ay. It’s unclear from Ihe draw ings w hat is proposed. Worst case is the 28 ’x20 ‘ scenario with the pavement being about 25' from the shoreline. The possible parking area in front of the garage is 1 7 -1 9* deep from the door to the irav eled paved roadw ay. The average compact car is 14* long, and nothing longer than that could comfortably park in front of the garage w iihout affecting traffic. With a road w idlh only 1 8' -20* wide, there really is no ability to parallel park cars on the street. A parking area for tw o vehicles on Ihe east side of Ihe road would potentially be of benefit to Ihe neighborhood as w ell as to the applicant in terms of safety and reducing congestion. The dowTiside is that cars w ill be parked very near Ihe lake. If Planning Commission concludes that a 20 ‘x20* parking area is a reasonable request, and that the existing road and parking conditions as well as the location of the garage near the lot line all support a hardcover variance, then staff would suggest three conditions to any approval granted: ]